ETHICS 1290 (Fournier-Sylvester @ Champlain) FALL 2016
454 | 4 | 0
808 | 4 | 0
679 | 2 | 0
461 | 2 | 0
414 | 1 | 0
631 | 3 | 0
456 | 3 | 0
429 | 0 | 0
631 | 4 | 0
786 | 3 | 0
1,002 | 3 | 0
185 | 0 | 0
1,609 | 10 | 1
- ‹ previous
- 2 of 2
Your post is very pertinent, and depicts both sides of the situation. You clearly give us the moral claims that are in cause in this article and they are well identified. However, I would suggest to develop your line of thought in more detail when you talked about the moral claims and why they fit with the zoo situation, and also structure your argumentation in order to go in more depth with each statement. What I mean by this, is that you could have deepened your analysis of why animals should stay in the wild if they are injured, if zoos should consider taking in only the injured ones etc.?
I 100% agree with your claim that we should not keep wild animals in zoos because we are harming them in a way that they are losing their autonomy if ever they would be reinstated in the wild. It is true to say that animals are not made to be circling in a cage all day long, trained and congratulated for spinning a ball on their nose, and that they should be roaming free in the wild where they belong. Very good and strong argument.
Overall your post is very good, I agree with you that animals should not be kept in zoos as a means to an end, meaning for the visual pleasure of the attracted individuals, and should not be used as paintings or sculptures are used in a museum. At the very least, I would draw the line between taking in free healthy wild animals, and taking in free but injured wild animals.
First of all, I would like to say that you have described in much depth and length both sides of the issue, which is great because you give your readers the facts, the explanations, the more scientific side to the matter, permitting us to analyse on our own, and make a critical and calculated decision of our own.
However, I believe that when you say that "all patients should have to fight for the quality of their lives", I don't completely agree with you, because most of the time, in Canada anyways, doctors will not accept assisted-death if they have scientifically-based hope for the patient, they don't just abandon their patients and let them take an irrational decision, it has to be approved by a certified doctor beforehand, and themselves.
Yes, patients do have the right to fight for their lives of course, but when there is nothing left to do, but only to suffer, and the doctor confirms it, then, in my opinion, it is normal to let the patient go, and I do not believe that they should have to keep fighting for "quality of life", because when in suffering and when in terminal phase, "quality of life" is not even in the question, it's all about only "life"
I completely agree with you that patients should have the right to deciding whether they want to live or die, and that living with sufferance is unhuman. However, I believe you applied "do no harm" in a confusing way. Personally, when I think of "do no harm", my mind goes straight to "do not kill", not: kill if you're suffering. What would have been interesting, is if you had applied this ethical principle to both your arguments, to see how it would have influenced both sides.
Overall honestly great post Alana. I've really picked on details, but your article was descriptive, clear and your opinion was extremely well identified.
I think it is an important topic to be discussed, especially with everything happening in recent years. Islamophobia has been on the rise for quite some times but only recently has it really peeked and, unfortunately, I still believe it will persist. It is important to distinguish secularism and plain discrimination. In this case, the woman was simply relaxing in front of the ocean with a veil (it's not even a burkini). A burkini is a form of freedom for women that decide to dress modestly and cover their skin for X reasons. It's a way for them to feel comfortable with themselves and enjoy a hot summer day. They have the right to dress as they want. Either it is with a burkini or with nothing.
This said, what is the difference between this new french law and the laws about women & clothing in place in Saudi Arabia which has the worst record of human rights? Why do Muslim women have to be either portrait as 'obliged' to wear a certain outfit or monitored on what they wear by the society they live in? Why can't Muslim women have to right to live the way they want without being judged?
This post was the one that really followed what the assignment was asking for. There were a lot of beliefs mentioned that were covered in the textbook entitled Ethical Choices: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases. So the arguments covered ethical values of equality versus ethical egoism and explained them as the two opposite approaches showing relativism and explaining the for and against assisted suicide being a product of relativism. Some people think this way others, due to their belief systems think another way.
Some people have MS or multiple schlerosis and end up lying on a bed sipping through a straw. But because they still have a fine mind, they have to stay alive. But they have no quality of life. If we allow these persons to be put to death, will this pave the way for one day other people deciding if I should live or die? Where would it end? You cannot start to take Gods work into your own hands because then you will loose control of this power and begin to think that we are God. And start making decisions as if we were Him. If we are for assitsed suicide instead of against assisted suicide will we open the door to a next level. Who gets to make the decision or approve the decision if it is not God? Are we going to as a next step start deciding for other people like our elders, that they are too old and should die?
The two sides of the argument seem to be to try to decide whether rhinos are an endangered species because their horns are in demand for their medical use in Asia, or because they are in demand because they are a solid investment in Asia. Either way it seems like their extinction is because of the demand for ivory in Asia.
It is probably true that the demand for it is high because they believe that rubbing it and grating it like a hard cheese, then drinking the powder with water will help prolong life of people living with cancer. Just think of how highly ancient Chinese natural remedies are respected in the western world. Acupuncture for instance. Who are we to say its not true or wrong. Does chemotherapy work better?
But at the same time it may be a real status symbol to own a big fat chunk of rhino tusk made of ivory. For them maybe it’s like owning a bar of gold. Maybe real successful businessmen have ivory in their homes, like marble or granite floors or counters over here!
Either way, the solution to the problem cannot be burning the stock for the world to see. Why can’t they farm rhinos like cattle, it would be better than poachers leaving dead rhino bodies to rot?
It really hurts to hear about a baby who has died at such a young age. But it is also sad to think that not only the parents have to suffer the loss of their son, live in constant worry feeling that they should have done things different and maybe he would be still alive now. But then you have to add the extra pain that some other people are judging them, and trying to accuse them of having neglected the child.
A minimum care for a child should be to feed them, change their diapers, give the child a soft safe crib to sleep in, hug the baby with love. You hear of parents beating a child, breaking their bones, burning a baby with cigarettes. These are people that are neglecting and harming their baby and should be charged with neglect, and put in jail. But meningitis is a very fast killer, and sometimes you hear that meningitis killed a child or a teenager. It is very rare and strange. Lots of kids have convulsions with a high fever.
It was a mistake, the parents really cared about the child, they tried many things to save the baby. Should we punish them some more? Is it not punishment enough for them to live in the hell that is now their life without the son they loved so much?
Your topic most definitely caught my attention as it is one that is very present today on social media. I understand your point of view that Harambe had to be shot in order to save the life of the child. On the other hand, why should the gorilla be punished a human misstep? Gorillas are animals who are very attached to their children. They take great care of them throughout their childhood and are very protective. Harambe more than likely thought the child was a defenseless gorilla and he simply dragged him away from the roaring crowd he viewed as a potential danger. Individual freedom is a value I hold dear and Harambe shouldn't have been killed due to a human error. Do you believe Harambe was protecting the child or trying to harm it?
This is a very well written article that points out good arguments for both sides. I agree with you that before reading this article I had a pretty strong stance on the fact that assisted suicide should be legalized as people should not be denied the right to be taken out of whatever pain they may be enduring. Though when the point that it may impede with the efforts to try and cure rare diseases was brought up, it opened my eyes that there is more to it than just taking a life. That certain theories may have been tested in order to save this person which could, in turn, have saved many more lives down the line. I believe this is a value conflict between the doctors will to serve others in a positive way and the patient's individual freedom to chose whether they wish to live or not. Although your article has opened my eyes as to why assisted should not be legalized, I still believe people should have the right to choose. I strongly believe in the values of wisdom and forgiveness and we should take into consideration that the patients have enough wisdom to decide whether they should end their lives or try to fight. I do believe our society is getting not only more ethical than before, but also more informed than before. People are able to take stronger stances on a certain side due to the ever increasing amount of information they can find to formulate a more critically thought out idea of the topic. Does the increased access to information allow society to make a better decision about the topic or is it more of a topic influenced by our values and ethical principles?
Thank you for your comment Charlotte! You sure bring up very good points, prioritizing nature over profit should be a value to everyone. Just like you stated, there would be no way to make profit if there is no habitable land due to exploitation of limited resources. I can connect with all of your values as the environment takes up a huge place for me and so does fairness for every individual. The doors to environmental destruction for economic reasons should definitely stay closed. I strongly believe that if this project ends up being permitted, the doors will be open and many other environmentally destructive projects for economic reasons may be put into place resulting in irreversible damage to planet Earth.
Thank you for your comment L-M-B! I most definitely agree with you that they should adopt the alternative and make the highway go around the Serengeti as it would have better effects on the African economy as a whole and less disastrous effects on the environment. I find it very interesting that you experienced the wildebeest migration live. I can only dream of seeing it with my own eyes!
There no collaborative classes